| Papers [1-14] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 8] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 —> | Search results on "NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION": |
|
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2008.
A discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear proliferation in modern society, focusing on the argument against nuclear proliferation.
1,782 words (approx. 7.1 pages), 8 sources, MLA, £ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the problem of nuclear proliferation in modern society. It describes the historical purpose of nuclear proliferation and the positive uses of nuclear proliferation. The paper then looks at both sides of the argument of whether to continue with nuclear proliferation or not. It discusses the benefits and the associated problems with nuclear proliferation and argues against nuclear proliferation.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Body
Counter Argument
Conclusion
From the Paper
"In conclusion it is clear that nuclear proliferation will remain one of the most significant issues of the modern world, as many nations North Korea, India, Iran and some unknown organizations through secretive or diplomatic means wish to continue in their bid to gain such weapons and there is really not that much that can be done to stop it, especially idealistically and despite the social and physical cost. Additionally, though nuclear proliferation serves a purpose in history, as a deterrent it is very difficult to say this is still the case as most are aware that responsible nations are even less likely to use such weapons today than they ever have been. Lastly, the utilization of nuclear technology for peaceful means, as the energy crisis grows in the world will further complicate the reality, despite the destructive capacity, even of these technologies. Peaceful use of nuclear technology can also seriously impede the ability of regulatory commissions and review boards to investigate, as nations have been deceptive in the past with regard to development."
| |
|
North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation, 2008.
A Lockwood analytical method for prediction (LAMP) analysis of the issue of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula.
4,519 words (approx. 18.1 pages), 8 sources, APA, £ 81.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the implications of modern nuclear proliferation in a regional and international arena and highlights the importance of North Korea's nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula. The paper utilizes the Lockwood analytical method for prediction (LAMP) method of analysis to appropriately predict the outcomes of North Korea's nuclear plans and their effects on the Korean peninsula.
Outline:
Introduction
Issue Identification
National Actors
In-depth Perceptual Study of Issue
Possible Courses of Action
Major Scenarios
Total Number of Permutations
Pairwise Comparison Results, Ranking and Analysis
Potential for Transposing
Conclusion and Focal Events
From the Paper
"This work will serve as a Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction (LAMP) analysis of the question of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula. As an emerging nuclear power North Korea may significantly change the manner in which the political world interacts with it, though you would think that it would not be likely to alter the manner in which individual North and South Koreans live their lives. Though this is clearly a simplistic and westernized view, as the understanding of the strength of a nation is intrinsic we, especially as Americans live in a state of almost constant denial of the manner in which the nation has developed "security," perceptually or otherwise. This is including a relatively low level of knowledge among common folk about the nature of armament."
| |
|
North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation, 2008.
An analysis of the impact of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula.
7,681 words (approx. 30.7 pages), 10 sources, APA, £ 116.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper serves as a Lockwood Analytical Method for Prediction (LAMP) analysis of the question of nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula. It describes the history and development of North Korea andr then discusses how North Korea's emergence as a nuclear power will affect nuclear proliferation in the Korean Peninsula and surrounding nations or national interests.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Issue Identification
National Actors
Possible Courses of Action
Major Scenarios
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Total Number of Permutations
Pair-wise Comparison Results, Ranking and Analysis
Conclusion and Focal Events
From the Paper
"To many, North Korea is emerging as a noticeable player in the world, owing almost entirely to its bid to create and manufacture a nuclear arsenal. In the summer of 2006, in fact on July 4th, not coincidentally the US national independence day holiday, North Korea tested at least seven nuclear missiles. ("The Real WMDs; by," 2006, p. 14) This event was a slap in the face to the current international players in the arms race, and especially the US who chose, for ease of conviction, post 9/11 to strike Iraq, rather than N. Korea, as its first step in the "war on terror." This event also marks the beginning of a show of power on the part of N. Korea, to not only deploy weapons for testing, a kind of shooting into the air, but to continue to develop and employ them as part of their own security strategy, despite international pressure to cease and desist. There is no real question that current event could begin the process of one of the eventual scenarios, outline by the LAMP method analysis above. Each primary and secondary player will likely have a political, economic and popular response to the events. Increased fear in each nation, both primary and secondary as well as furtherance of reports of total economic and humanitarian breakdown in N. Korea will also likely continue to feed the potential for conflict and hopefully eventual resolution, of some kind. Ideally such a resolution would involve peaceful aspects rather than militaristic ones but given the show of force this is extremely improbable at this time."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2006.
A critical statistical analysis of the relationship between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
2,888 words (approx. 11.6 pages), 9 sources, APA, £ 59.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper employs a critical review of the body of literature, original research synthesis to determine if indeed a causal relationship can be found between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An exhaustive statistical regression analysis illustrates that the relationship between the aforementioned variables is not significant and thus, that the hypothesis of correlation and causation cannot be confirmed. However, the paper goes on to provide evidence to suggest correlation between the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other factors such as global military tensions and certain categories of world events. The paper includes graphs and tables.
Paper Outline:
Literature Review
Proposal
Data Sources
Data Analysis
Results and Interpretation
Discussion
Conclusion
Reference List
From the Paper
"The body of literature is generally in concessus with regard to the link between the production of nuclear energy and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. There is, however, disagreement over the method by which nuclear weapons and materials are spread. Some argue that terrorist organisations and rogue states are able to acquire enriched uranium from nuclear waste deposits. Others claim that these parties are more likely to invest in nuclear energy technology as a means of acquiring nuclear weapons while other still claim that the link between these two factors in negligible or non existent. "
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2002.
The necessity for a strong U.S. policy to control the danger of nuclear proliferation.
1,900 words (approx. 7.6 pages), 10 sources, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses the necessary elements for an effective U.S. policy stance on nuclear arms and nuclear proliferation control. It examines both political policy and military options necessary to counter nuclear program advancements in hostile countries.
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation: India and Pakistan, 2008.
This paper explores the nuclear weaponry proliferation in India and Pakistan.
3,031 words (approx. 12.1 pages), 13 sources, MLA, £ 61.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper examines the nuclear weaponry proliferation from a "collective goods" perspective and explores the many reasons why a nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan will not lead to a stable balance of power in the region. The paper discusses international terrorism, sectarian and ethnic hatreds, deep-seated paranoia and the fact that Pakistan is overly-reliant upon its nuclear weaponry for its defense. The paper therefore argues that India and Pakistan should be discouraged from their present nuclear build-ups.
From the Paper
"To start with, "collective goods" is really a term drawn from economics - albeit it is one that can be applied to a number of different disciplines depending upon the context within which it is being introduced. For our purposes, "collective goods" are really public goods wherein the item in question cannot be withheld from one consumer without also withholding it from all consumers. A classic example of this is national defense whereby a nation cannot defend its borders without also defending all individuals who reside within those borders at any one time - including foreigners or "undesirables". Additionally, the "flip-side" of collective goods is that, not only are they items which cannot practicably be denied to any one person, but they are also items which benefit those who simply refuse to pay for them; suffice it to say, the collective good makes "free-riders" out of many people (Yamagishi & Sato, 67-69). This concept has immediate application to the issue of nuclear proliferation in India and Pakistan."
| |
|
North Korea and Nuclear Proliferation, 2005.
This paper discusses the arguments for and against North Korean nuclear proliferation.
2,540 words (approx. 10.2 pages), 11 sources, MLA, £ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that the possession of nuclear weapons by North Korea is a problem because of its deviant and erratic behavior, capricious communist leaders, impoverished citizens and the serious threat to its neighbors and the international population. The author points out that, from the North Korean viewpoint, it requires a nuclear weapons program for self-preservation especially against the inevitable attack from the United States; having a nuclear program is the only way it will be able to negotiate with the United States. The paper explains that the argument of the global community over the ever-changing standards used to decide if a country is suitable for nuclear weapons development is complicated by differing motives, such as power, influence, nationalistic pride and security nations; however, when these motives are pushed too far and manifest into irresponsible or unpredictable behavior, the international community is required to aggressively pursue disarmament, as is the case for North Korea.
From the Paper
"President Clinton, who served dual terms from 1993-2000, was a firm believer in the power of diplomacy to sway the Koreans and employed lots of negotiation devices throughout his term. Conversely, President Bush, who served from 2001 to the present, is commonly portrayed as taking a tougher stance on foreign relations and decided to decline all bilateral negotiations with North Korea. Agreeing to meet with North Korea one on one would be appeasement in his eyes and Bush argued that he would not seek to pacify the Koreans; rather the President wished for the nations of South Korea, Japan, and China to also engage with North Korea and take greater responsibility in the dispute, citing their regional responsibility. Lastly, in 2003 President Bush cancelled the Agreed Framework pact, created by the Clinton administration in 1994, and ended the regular fuel shipments to North Korea."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2001.
A discussion of how the possession of nuclear weapons can increase or decrease the security of states.
1,195 words (approx. 4.8 pages), 3 sources, £ 27.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This term paper discusses the benefits & drawbacks of nuclear proliferation and how it can increase or decrease the security dilemma. It shows the main concern that lies at the heart of the issue of nuclear proliferation to be the security of states.
From the Paper
"Nuclear proliferation, or the spread of nuclear weapons, occurs in two ways: vertically and horizontally. Vertical proliferation occurs at a time when a country already owning nuclear weapons increases the size of its arsenals. However, the main fear lies with horizontal proliferation. Horizontal proliferation involves the spread of nuclear weapons to currently non-nuclear states. Some fear that if non-nuclear states acquire arms, it results in decreased security for all states. Others argue that if all states possess arms then the fear of a nuclear war deters states from using their nuclear weapons for offensive purposes. The question most often associated with the debate of nuclear proliferation states: Does nuclear proliferation increase or decrease the security of states? This question, commonly known as the security dilemma, lies at the heart of this issue. Opponents of nuclear proliferation claim that the emergence of new nuclear states decreases security because new nuclear states come in hostile pairs, have governments and societies that are not well rooted, and increase the likelihood of nuclear accidents and terrorist thefts of nuclear weapons. Proponents of nuclear proliferation state that the emergence of new nuclear states increases security because new nuclear states alter the dynamics of arms races and deterrent balances are inherently stable."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2001.
A look at how the introduction of nuclear warfare has impacted conflict between India and Pakistan and the world.
2,010 words (approx. 8.0 pages), 5 sources, £ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
An examination of the ongoing conflicts between India and Pakistan and how the introduction of nuclear weapons has effected their conflicting relationship. The author reveals how nuclear proliferation has its bonuses in minimizing threat between the two countries yet simultaneously threatening global security.
From the Paper
"There is no larger threat to the world than nuclear warfare. A World War in which nuclear weapons were used would undoubtedly cease life as we know it on earth. This outcome would be attributed to the direct effects of the bombs and the indirect effects a nuclear winter would bring about. This fact leads the majority of people to believe that the less amount of nuclear weapons on the planet the better. Now let?s say that you live in India or Pakistan, neighboring countries that have fought each other in the past. Many people have died in battles between these two countries. Within the last few years each of these countries has acknowledged the fact that they possess nuclear weapons by testing them underground for the world, and especially each other, to see. So was the introduction of nuclear weapons a good or bad thing for the future of relations between India and Pakistan? The introduction of nuclear weapons into the militaries of these two regional powers was a huge step in reducing the chance of all-out war between the two rivals due to nuclear deterrence. However, just because the threat of nuclear attack has slowly helped start India and Pakistan on the road to peace, it does not necessarily mean that the world would be better off if every nation had nuclear weapons."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 2006.
An analysis of "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed" by Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan.
1,284 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 1 source, MLA, £ 30.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines how Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan look through two completely different lenses when looking at the realities of the world, where Waltz's theory is neo-realist structural theory and Sagan's is organization theory. It looks at how their two theories regarding nuclear proliferation have led us to emphasize different aspects of nuclear history and to predict very different nuclear futures.
From the Paper
"Waltz does not think that nuclear proliferation is a bad thing, as he says many times "Nuclear weapons make wars hard to start." (Sagan and Waltz p.45) He believes that deterrence will continue to work; although he is not promoting proliferation he is just realistic by saying proliferation will continue and then he has an optimistic proliferation outlook for what this means to the world. Waltz believes that, "the behavior of new nuclear states will reflect their interest in avoiding nuclear war. New nuclear powers will avoid preventive nuclear wars, develop survivable nuclear arsenals, and prevent nuclear weapons accidents because it is in their obvious national interests to do so." (Sagan and Waltz p. 83) "
| |
|
U.S. and Iran Relations in Nuclear Proliferation, 2005.
This paper explores in detail the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear weapons while examining America's methods of sustaining its hegemonic presence in the world.
2,159 words (approx. 8.6 pages), 6 sources, APA, £ 46.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper examines both sides of the nuclear issue by stating Iran has concerns regarding the attainment of nuclear technology but wishes to appear to the world as an advanced and well-developed nation. With nuclear weapons, Iran's influence in the Middle East could be increased which could entail an alliance with Iraq that would promote anti-U.S. sentiment resulting in undermining U.S. efforts in the Middle East in general. The writer of this paper focuses on the behavior of the U.S. towards Iran on the matter of nuclear non-proliferation and explains in-depth how the U.S. is using a web of approaches to maintain its world wide hegemonic presence.
From the Paper
"The behavior of the United States towards Iran regarding the issue of nuclear non-proliferation could be viewed through a number of theories, but the most proficient analysis of this situation is achieved through regime theory. Foremost, we must understand the issues surrounding why the U.S. wants to halt Iran's desire for nuclear technology. Since Iran does not currently have nuclear capabilities, it would be nearly impossible for them to launch a trans-Atlantic attack for a period of 5-10 years. Although that possibility seems unlikely, the U.S. is promoting the prevention of such a future assault. Another possibility is that if Iran was able to hone nuclear technology, other Arab states such as Egypt and Syria would feel threatened by this considering the negative relations of Iran and Israel, and would not want to be caught in the middle."
| |
|
Comprehensive Test Ban Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, 1996.
History & 1995 permanent international ratification, negotiations, nuclear & non-nuclear states, principles & provisions, review conferences, U.S. public opinion, unresolved problems.
4,275 words (approx. 17.1 pages), 14 sources, £ 93.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was made permanent in May, 25 years after it entered into force and nearly 50 years after the United States wrought devastation on Hiroshima. The four-week NPT Review and Extension Conference, held in New York April 17 to May 12, was the largest arms control conference ever held, with 175 of the treaty's 178 parties participating ("How to," 1995, p. 28). No state got all it wanted, although the weapon states had more reason to be satisfied than the non-weapon states.
The United States, Russia, Britain, and France wanted the treaty extended indefinitely and unconditionally. Only the first part of their..."
| |
|
Nuclear Proliferation, 1995.
This paper discusses the Ameican and international concerns and efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons in Third World: Background, examples and monitoring.
2,025 words (approx. 8.1 pages), 8 sources, £ 49.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
From the Paper
"The United States developed the first atomic bomb and used it to end World War II in 1945. After the war, the world was marked by a Cold War that lasted until the fall of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the former Soviet Union at the end of the 1980s. During that long period of time, a number of other nations joined the nuclear club by developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons, and one of the primary goals of American foreign policy was to limit nuclear proliferation to the greatest degree possible. In the changed world circumstances faced today, the danger of nuclear proliferation has not passed. Instead, there is more and more concern about new technological developments that might make it possible for smaller and less-developed nations to produce nuclear weapons that would be smaller and more powerful than the bombs used on Japan in 1945."
| |
|
Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 2005.
A thorough analysis of the arguments in favor of nuclear proliferation and the arguments opposed to it.
2,676 words (approx. 10.7 pages), 12 sources, MLA, £ 55.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper takes a look at the arguments opposed to and in favor of nuclear proliferation, noting the politics and philosophies behind both sides. After summarizing the arguments, the paper then concludes that, ironically, the very factors and sentiments that encourage nuclear proliferation are the same as those that discourage its proliferation.
From the Paper
"Ever since the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the world has been polarized into two different groups: one that supports nuclear proliferation, and another that vehemently campaigns against the piling up of nuclear material in the world. Both groups have their own arguments to justify their stand. While those who oppose nuclear weapons argue that nuclear proliferation endangers the very existence of the world and international peace, the supporters of nuclear weapons argue that nuclear weapons are required as a deterrent force. The American policy of minimum deterrence echoes this sentiment. However, considering the fact that the world reached dangerously close to an all out nuclear war way back in the eighties during the cold war years, points to the fact that the policy of minimum deterrence can, in the hands of hot-headed heads of states, become a very dangerous tool for political manipulation."
|
|
|
